RABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V PRESENT & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P v. BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE

19.09.2022 under the aforementioned provisions, and the First Information Report (FIR) was submitted before the jurisdictional Court.

5.7. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Crime No. 318/2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, which involved the murder of one Sreenivasan, a BJP activist, was a connected offence under Section 8 of the NIA Act. In the said case, the Kerala Police had laid a final report arraying 44 persons as the Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 11 :: accused and charged them for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 34, 118, 119, 109, 115, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 341, 201, 212, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(a)(b)(d) r/w. Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988. The case records in Crime No. 318 of 2022 of Palakkad Police Station were transferred to the Special Court.

5.8 Accordingly, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide order dated 11011/82/2022/NIA, directed the NIA to investigate FIR No. 318/2022 dated 16.04.2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, Kerala, under the provisions of the NIA Act, 2008.

5.9. It is alleged that the PFI has frontal organisations like Rehab India Foundation (RIF), Campus Front of India (CFI), All India Imams Council (AIIC), National Confederation of Human Rights Organization (NCHRO), National Women’s Front (NWF), Junior Front, Empower India Foundation and Rehab Foundation, in addition to their political wing, Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI).

5.10. On 28.09.2022, the Government of India declared the Popular Front of India and its affiliates/frontal organisations as an “Unlawful Association” under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 12 ::

5.11. The prosecution alleges that the 1st accused, Popular Front of India, its office bearers, leaders and members besides their affiliates, hatched a conspiracy during the past few years inside and outside Kerala, with their agenda to overthrow the democracy in India and to implement Islamic Rule in India by 2047, for which they prepared structured stages of progression. In pursuance to their plans, they carried out various activities including uniting Muslims under the flag of PFI, forming alliances with certain groups, stockpiling weapons and explosives, etc. They also intended to eliminate those who act against the interest of PFI and recruit enough trained cadres and stockpile of arms to declare a new Constitution based on Islamic Principles.

5.12. In pursuance to their larger conspiracy, PFI had established 3 Wings - ‘Reporters Wing’, ‘Physical and Arms Training Wing/PE Wing’ and ‘Service Wing/Hit teams’. Through their ‘Reporters Wing’ which is a quasi-intelligence division of the PFI, it collected private and personal information of prominent personalities in the society, and leaders of other communities, especially the Hindu Community, including their day-to-day activities. The data is compiled at the PFI district level and communicated to their State hierarchy. The details are regularly updated and utilised Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 13 :: to “Target” the individuals as and when required by the terrorist gang. The PFI had trained its cadres for the collection of such data and had stored them,and provided the same to their assault teams in ‘Service Wing’ for attack as and when decided by their leadership.

5.13. In further pursuance to their agenda, the PFI through their Arms Training Wing, prepared master trainers to impart uniform physical and arms training under a common syllabus with set course to their cadres in various stages under the guise of yoga training programs, rescue and relief activities, martial arts and other physical development activities. The PFI devised the program to filter the cadres through various stages and gave arms and explosives training to selected cadres through these stages. PFI used its multiple facilities and affiliated institutions, including the institutions run in the name of ‘Trusts’, besides other places, to conduct such training camps and secret meetings. The PFI used these trained cadres to eliminate shortlisted targets based on the decisions of their leadership as and when required. The PFI also used such selected cadres as executioners of the decisions of their pseudo-court – “Darul Khada”. Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 14 ::

5.14. The PFI, its office bearers and cadres had conspired to commit the terrorist act by killing any targeted person of another religion/section of the society to create terror in the minds of other communities and the public at large. In furtherance to that, PFI leaders and cadres carried out intensive recce on members of other religions, particularly the Hindu community and compiled the same for targeting through their ‘Service Wing/Hit teams’.

5.15. In murder cases involving PFI cadres, including the one in Crime No. 318 of 2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, none of the accused had any personal enmity with the deceased. The victims have been selected solely because of their leadership/membership in a particular community and were killed to create terror in the society. Several persons were recced to become possible targets. The PFI through such acts intended to disturb harmony among the society and to terrorise people within the society with a view to creating a sense of fear and insecurity in their minds. The PFI also intended to instill confidence among its cadres by executing such acts. The plans so made were executed to prevent any defiance of their command in future. Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 15 ::

5.16. In one such specific incident in pursuance to their larger conspiracy, leaders and accused persons being members of Popular Front of India (PFI) conducted conspiracy at various places in Palakkad on 15th and 16th of April 2022, conducted reconnaissance of residences belonging to several leaders from Hindu community who appear in their target-list and chose and decided to eliminate one prominent Hindu leader named S. K. Srinivasan of Palakkad. They, in furtherance to the conspiracy, set out to commit terrorist act on 16.04.2022 for which 5 accused persons (A-17 to A-21) came on three two-wheelers, three of whom criminally trespassed into SKS Autos situated at Melamuri, Pallippuram, Palakkad run by S. K. Sreenivasan, and inflicted grievous injuries on Sreenivasan and killed him by hacking his head and other parts of his body with choppers which the assailants were carrying with the sole intention and purpose to murder him brutally, so as to create terror in the mind of other communities and public at large. The above act of murder is in furtherance of the larger conspiracy of the 1st accused, to create terror.

5.17 The investigation revealed that the leaders of PFI had justified the activities of cadres in support of the proscribed terrorist organisation ISIS and were found with the possession of ISIS propaganda videos and documents for Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 16 :: propagation. The PFI, its leaders and cadres have incited the people by provocative speeches and slogans to cause communal disharmony.

5.18. On completion of investigation against A1 to A14, A16 to A19, A21 to A26, A29 to A40, and A42 to A63 and A66, final report has been filed against them (59 accused) on 17.03.2023, for offence under sections 120B, 34, 109, 115, 118, 119, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 153A, 341, 302, 201, 212 r/w.s. 149, 120B r/w. Section 302 of IPC, Section 3(a)(b)(d) r/w. Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 and Sections 13, 16, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 22C, 23, 38 & 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act,

6. The case of the appellants:

6.1 According to the appellants, the common case against them in the final report is that they attended a conspiracy and conducted recce along with other accused and took a prominent part in facilitating the murder of Sreenivasan. They raise the following contentions to assail the order passed by the learned Special Court and to persuade this Court to set them at liberty by granting bail to them. Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 17 :: a) In Crime No. 318/2022, the investigation was conducted by the Kerala Police, and they came to the conclusion that the murder was committed in retaliation to the murder of a PFI Activist by name ‘Subair’. In other words, it was a case of political murder. However, when the NIA took up the investigation and laid the final report, they came up with an allegation that there was a larger conspiracy to commit the murder of Hindu leaders. A communal colour is being given to the whole incident to invite the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. b) A proper evaluation of the records will not reveal that the allegations attract the provisions of Section 15 of the UAP Act. c) The records collected by the NIA would not reveal that any of the appellants have acted to establish Islamic Rule in India within the year 2047. d) The PFI was categorised as an unlawful organisation in the month of September 2022 and even if the appellants were members of the said organisation prior to the imposition of the ban, they cannot be roped in under UAP Act. The mere fact that there are some photographs showing that some of the appellants were in PFI uniform prior to the ban cannot be taken as an Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 18 :: incriminating circumstance against them. e) The invocation of Section 8 of the UAP Act with a view to make Crime No. 318 of 2022 of the Palakkad Town South Police Station, a connected case to the case registered by the NIA, is illegal. f) The final report filed by the NIA includes more than 1600 documents, 900 witnesses, 52 protected witnesses, 670 material objects and ten terabytes of FSL reports. There is no likelihood of the case concluding in the near future as the proceedings have been stayed by the Apex Court in SLP (Crl) No. 3658/2024, interdicting the framing of the charge. In view of the law laid down in Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb1, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another2, Athar Parwez v. Union of India3, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India4, some of the appellants who have been in custody for more than two years and four months are entitled to bail. g) The details of the period during which the appellants have been in custody are as under: 1 [(2021) 3 SCC 713] 2 [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1693] 3 [(2024 SCC OnLine SC 3762] 4 [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945] Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 19 :: Accused No. 29 (Jishad)- from 10.5.2022 onwards Accused No. 30 (Ashraf @ Ashraf Moulavi) from 24.5.2022 onwards Accused No. 51 (Sirajudheen) from 16.09.2022 onwards Accused No. 33 (Nassar) from 14.05.2022 onwards Accused No. 25(Jamsheer) from 31.10.22 onwards Accused No. 27 (Abdul Basith Ali) from 26.04.2022 onwards Accused No. 31 (Mohammed Shefeek) from 13.12.2022 onwards Accused No.32 (Ashraf K.) from 07.11.2022 onwards. The above dates reveal that the accused have been in custody, ranging from two years and four months in the case of Accused No. 32 and 2 years and 11 months in the case of Accused No. 27. h) The allegation against the appellants is that they were part of the larger conspiracy and underwent physical and arms training imparted by PFI at Malabar House. It is also alleged that some of them had harboured the accused and provided vehicles for conducting recce. However, no credible materials have been collected to substantiate the above allegations. The bail applications filed by the co-accused were considered by a coordinate bench of this Court and Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 20 :: persons facing identical allegations have been granted bail. i) Accused No.31 (Mohammed Shefeek K.) has not been arrayed as an accused in Crime No. 318/2022 of the Palakkad Town South Police Station.

6.2. The respondents filed objections clearly narrating the role played by each appellant. According to them, clinching materials have been collected to substantiate that the appellants and their associates, being members of an Unlawful Association like the PFI, have conspired to establish Islamic Rule in India under a hidden agenda. The records collected also reveal that they were members of a terrorist gang and they were preparing themselves for the commission of a terrorist act by imparting/undergoing arms training, collecting the details of targets and also committing a terrorist act of murder of Sreenivasan on 16.04.2022, as part of a larger conspiracy to instil fear on Hindu community and to establish Islamic Rule in India. We shall deal with the objections while considering whether the allegations against the applicant can be held to be prima facie true at the time of consideration of the bail application.

6.3. Before we proceed to analyse the rival submissions, it is apposite to restate the settled legal position about matters to be considered for deciding an Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 21 :: application for bail. They are: (i) whether there is any prima facie reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. [See: State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi5].

7. The implications of 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967:

7.1. Section 43-D of the 1967 Act, inserted by Act 35 of 2008 w.e.f. 31-12-2008 provides for a modified application of certain offences punishable under Chapters IV and VI of the Act. It would be apposite to refer to Sub-sections (5), (6) 5 (2005) 8 SCC 21 Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 22 :: and (7) of Section 43-D. “43-D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code.— (1) xxxxxx (2) xxxxxx (3) xxxxxx (4) xxxxxx (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. (6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub-section (5) is in addition to the restrictions under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (5) and (6), no bail shall be granted to a person accused of an offence punishable under this Act, if Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 23 :: he is not an Indian citizen and has entered the country unauthorisedly or illegally except in very exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing.”

7.2. A bare reading of sub-section (5) of Section 43-D shows that apart from the fact that subsection (5) bars a Special Court from releasing an accused on bail without affording the Public Prosecutor an opportunity of being heard on the application seeking release of an accused on bail, the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43-D puts a complete embargo on the powers of the Special Court to release an accused on bail. It lays down that if the Court, “on perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure”, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation, against such person, as regards commission of offence or offences under Chapter IV and/or Chapter VI of the UAP Act is prima facie true, such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond. (See Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab6).

7.3. In Gurwinder (supra), the Apex Court followed and reiterated the observations in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali7, in which case elaborate

19.09.2022 under the aforementioned provisions, and the First Information Report (FIR) was submitted before the jurisdictional Court.

5.7. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Crime No. 318/2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, which involved the murder of one Sreenivasan, a BJP activist, was a connected offence under Section 8 of the NIA Act. In the said case, the Kerala Police had laid a final report arraying 44 persons as the Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 11 :: accused and charged them for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 34, 118, 119, 109, 115, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 341, 201, 212, 302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(a)(b)(d) r/w. Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988. The case records in Crime No. 318 of 2022 of Palakkad Police Station were transferred to the Special Court.

5.8 Accordingly, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide order dated 11011/82/2022/NIA, directed the NIA to investigate FIR No. 318/2022 dated 16.04.2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, Kerala, under the provisions of the NIA Act, 2008.

5.9. It is alleged that the PFI has frontal organisations like Rehab India Foundation (RIF), Campus Front of India (CFI), All India Imams Council (AIIC), National Confederation of Human Rights Organization (NCHRO), National Women’s Front (NWF), Junior Front, Empower India Foundation and Rehab Foundation, in addition to their political wing, Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI).

5.10. On 28.09.2022, the Government of India declared the Popular Front of India and its affiliates/frontal organisations as an “Unlawful Association” under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 12 ::

5.11. The prosecution alleges that the 1st accused, Popular Front of India, its office bearers, leaders and members besides their affiliates, hatched a conspiracy during the past few years inside and outside Kerala, with their agenda to overthrow the democracy in India and to implement Islamic Rule in India by 2047, for which they prepared structured stages of progression. In pursuance to their plans, they carried out various activities including uniting Muslims under the flag of PFI, forming alliances with certain groups, stockpiling weapons and explosives, etc. They also intended to eliminate those who act against the interest of PFI and recruit enough trained cadres and stockpile of arms to declare a new Constitution based on Islamic Principles.

5.12. In pursuance to their larger conspiracy, PFI had established 3 Wings - ‘Reporters Wing’, ‘Physical and Arms Training Wing/PE Wing’ and ‘Service Wing/Hit teams’. Through their ‘Reporters Wing’ which is a quasi-intelligence division of the PFI, it collected private and personal information of prominent personalities in the society, and leaders of other communities, especially the Hindu Community, including their day-to-day activities. The data is compiled at the PFI district level and communicated to their State hierarchy. The details are regularly updated and utilised Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 13 :: to “Target” the individuals as and when required by the terrorist gang. The PFI had trained its cadres for the collection of such data and had stored them,and provided the same to their assault teams in ‘Service Wing’ for attack as and when decided by their leadership.

5.13. In further pursuance to their agenda, the PFI through their Arms Training Wing, prepared master trainers to impart uniform physical and arms training under a common syllabus with set course to their cadres in various stages under the guise of yoga training programs, rescue and relief activities, martial arts and other physical development activities. The PFI devised the program to filter the cadres through various stages and gave arms and explosives training to selected cadres through these stages. PFI used its multiple facilities and affiliated institutions, including the institutions run in the name of ‘Trusts’, besides other places, to conduct such training camps and secret meetings. The PFI used these trained cadres to eliminate shortlisted targets based on the decisions of their leadership as and when required. The PFI also used such selected cadres as executioners of the decisions of their pseudo-court – “Darul Khada”. Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 14 ::

5.14. The PFI, its office bearers and cadres had conspired to commit the terrorist act by killing any targeted person of another religion/section of the society to create terror in the minds of other communities and the public at large. In furtherance to that, PFI leaders and cadres carried out intensive recce on members of other religions, particularly the Hindu community and compiled the same for targeting through their ‘Service Wing/Hit teams’.

5.15. In murder cases involving PFI cadres, including the one in Crime No. 318 of 2022 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, none of the accused had any personal enmity with the deceased. The victims have been selected solely because of their leadership/membership in a particular community and were killed to create terror in the society. Several persons were recced to become possible targets. The PFI through such acts intended to disturb harmony among the society and to terrorise people within the society with a view to creating a sense of fear and insecurity in their minds. The PFI also intended to instill confidence among its cadres by executing such acts. The plans so made were executed to prevent any defiance of their command in future. Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 15 ::

5.16. In one such specific incident in pursuance to their larger conspiracy, leaders and accused persons being members of Popular Front of India (PFI) conducted conspiracy at various places in Palakkad on 15th and 16th of April 2022, conducted reconnaissance of residences belonging to several leaders from Hindu community who appear in their target-list and chose and decided to eliminate one prominent Hindu leader named S. K. Srinivasan of Palakkad. They, in furtherance to the conspiracy, set out to commit terrorist act on 16.04.2022 for which 5 accused persons (A-17 to A-21) came on three two-wheelers, three of whom criminally trespassed into SKS Autos situated at Melamuri, Pallippuram, Palakkad run by S. K. Sreenivasan, and inflicted grievous injuries on Sreenivasan and killed him by hacking his head and other parts of his body with choppers which the assailants were carrying with the sole intention and purpose to murder him brutally, so as to create terror in the mind of other communities and public at large. The above act of murder is in furtherance of the larger conspiracy of the 1st accused, to create terror.

5.17 The investigation revealed that the leaders of PFI had justified the activities of cadres in support of the proscribed terrorist organisation ISIS and were found with the possession of ISIS propaganda videos and documents for Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 16 :: propagation. The PFI, its leaders and cadres have incited the people by provocative speeches and slogans to cause communal disharmony.

5.18. On completion of investigation against A1 to A14, A16 to A19, A21 to A26, A29 to A40, and A42 to A63 and A66, final report has been filed against them (59 accused) on 17.03.2023, for offence under sections 120B, 34, 109, 115, 118, 119, 143, 144, 147, 148, 449, 153A, 341, 302, 201, 212 r/w.s. 149, 120B r/w. Section 302 of IPC, Section 3(a)(b)(d) r/w. Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 and Sections 13, 16, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 22C, 23, 38 & 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 25 (1) (a) of Arms Act,

6. The case of the appellants:

6.1 According to the appellants, the common case against them in the final report is that they attended a conspiracy and conducted recce along with other accused and took a prominent part in facilitating the murder of Sreenivasan. They raise the following contentions to assail the order passed by the learned Special Court and to persuade this Court to set them at liberty by granting bail to them. Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 17 :: a) In Crime No. 318/2022, the investigation was conducted by the Kerala Police, and they came to the conclusion that the murder was committed in retaliation to the murder of a PFI Activist by name ‘Subair’. In other words, it was a case of political murder. However, when the NIA took up the investigation and laid the final report, they came up with an allegation that there was a larger conspiracy to commit the murder of Hindu leaders. A communal colour is being given to the whole incident to invite the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. b) A proper evaluation of the records will not reveal that the allegations attract the provisions of Section 15 of the UAP Act. c) The records collected by the NIA would not reveal that any of the appellants have acted to establish Islamic Rule in India within the year 2047. d) The PFI was categorised as an unlawful organisation in the month of September 2022 and even if the appellants were members of the said organisation prior to the imposition of the ban, they cannot be roped in under UAP Act. The mere fact that there are some photographs showing that some of the appellants were in PFI uniform prior to the ban cannot be taken as an Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 18 :: incriminating circumstance against them. e) The invocation of Section 8 of the UAP Act with a view to make Crime No. 318 of 2022 of the Palakkad Town South Police Station, a connected case to the case registered by the NIA, is illegal. f) The final report filed by the NIA includes more than 1600 documents, 900 witnesses, 52 protected witnesses, 670 material objects and ten terabytes of FSL reports. There is no likelihood of the case concluding in the near future as the proceedings have been stayed by the Apex Court in SLP (Crl) No. 3658/2024, interdicting the framing of the charge. In view of the law laid down in Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb1, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another2, Athar Parwez v. Union of India3, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India4, some of the appellants who have been in custody for more than two years and four months are entitled to bail. g) The details of the period during which the appellants have been in custody are as under: 1 [(2021) 3 SCC 713] 2 [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1693] 3 [(2024 SCC OnLine SC 3762] 4 [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945] Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 19 :: Accused No. 29 (Jishad)- from 10.5.2022 onwards Accused No. 30 (Ashraf @ Ashraf Moulavi) from 24.5.2022 onwards Accused No. 51 (Sirajudheen) from 16.09.2022 onwards Accused No. 33 (Nassar) from 14.05.2022 onwards Accused No. 25(Jamsheer) from 31.10.22 onwards Accused No. 27 (Abdul Basith Ali) from 26.04.2022 onwards Accused No. 31 (Mohammed Shefeek) from 13.12.2022 onwards Accused No.32 (Ashraf K.) from 07.11.2022 onwards. The above dates reveal that the accused have been in custody, ranging from two years and four months in the case of Accused No. 32 and 2 years and 11 months in the case of Accused No. 27. h) The allegation against the appellants is that they were part of the larger conspiracy and underwent physical and arms training imparted by PFI at Malabar House. It is also alleged that some of them had harboured the accused and provided vehicles for conducting recce. However, no credible materials have been collected to substantiate the above allegations. The bail applications filed by the co-accused were considered by a coordinate bench of this Court and Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 20 :: persons facing identical allegations have been granted bail. i) Accused No.31 (Mohammed Shefeek K.) has not been arrayed as an accused in Crime No. 318/2022 of the Palakkad Town South Police Station.

6.2. The respondents filed objections clearly narrating the role played by each appellant. According to them, clinching materials have been collected to substantiate that the appellants and their associates, being members of an Unlawful Association like the PFI, have conspired to establish Islamic Rule in India under a hidden agenda. The records collected also reveal that they were members of a terrorist gang and they were preparing themselves for the commission of a terrorist act by imparting/undergoing arms training, collecting the details of targets and also committing a terrorist act of murder of Sreenivasan on 16.04.2022, as part of a larger conspiracy to instil fear on Hindu community and to establish Islamic Rule in India. We shall deal with the objections while considering whether the allegations against the applicant can be held to be prima facie true at the time of consideration of the bail application.

6.3. Before we proceed to analyse the rival submissions, it is apposite to restate the settled legal position about matters to be considered for deciding an Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 21 :: application for bail. They are: (i) whether there is any prima facie reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. [See: State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi5].

7. The implications of 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967:

7.1. Section 43-D of the 1967 Act, inserted by Act 35 of 2008 w.e.f. 31-12-2008 provides for a modified application of certain offences punishable under Chapters IV and VI of the Act. It would be apposite to refer to Sub-sections (5), (6) 5 (2005) 8 SCC 21 Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 22 :: and (7) of Section 43-D. “43-D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code.— (1) xxxxxx (2) xxxxxx (3) xxxxxx (4) xxxxxx (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true. (6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub-section (5) is in addition to the restrictions under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (5) and (6), no bail shall be granted to a person accused of an offence punishable under this Act, if Crl.A. Nos.228/2025, 225/2025 & 242/2025 :: 23 :: he is not an Indian citizen and has entered the country unauthorisedly or illegally except in very exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing.”

7.2. A bare reading of sub-section (5) of Section 43-D shows that apart from the fact that subsection (5) bars a Special Court from releasing an accused on bail without affording the Public Prosecutor an opportunity of being heard on the application seeking release of an accused on bail, the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43-D puts a complete embargo on the powers of the Special Court to release an accused on bail. It lays down that if the Court, “on perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure”, is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation, against such person, as regards commission of offence or offences under Chapter IV and/or Chapter VI of the UAP Act is prima facie true, such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond. (See Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab6).

7.3. In Gurwinder (supra), the Apex Court followed and reiterated the observations in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali7, in which case elaborate